The Real House Lives Strengthening the Role of Mps in an Age of Partisanship
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
SAMARA’S MP EXIT INTERVIEWS: VOLUME II The Real House Lives Strengthening the role of MPs in an age of partisanship REPORT ONE: MPs IN PARLIAMENT REPORT TWO: MPs IN THEIR CONSTITUENCY REPORT THREE: MPs IN THEIR POLITICAL PARTY “Empty, nihilistic, repetitive partisanship tires everyone out. It’s exhausting. It’s frustrating. It’s humiliating, sometimes, for those taking part. And it’s alienating for citizens. But—we need strong parties. A more urbane and civil approach to partisanship, but stronger parties … I don’t think we’re convincing large numbers of Canadians that being part of a political party is going to help them or that they’ll enjoy it or it’ll give them some benefit. Because none of our parties fully reflect the country. The complexity. They don’t engage people.EMBARGOED Just as Parliament doesn’t, and our democracy doesn’t to the extent that we would like. So: less partisanship,COPY stronger parties.” 2 Contents INTRODUCING SAMARA’S MP EXIT INTERVIEWS: VOLUME II 4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 6 WHO PARTICIPATED? 8 INTRODUCTION 9 THE JOB DESCRIPTION: MPs IN THE PARTY 12 KEEP IT IN THE FAMILY: HOW MPs DESCRIBE LIFE IN THE PARTY 13 Partisanship: “Must die on every hill!” 13 “Sit in the sauna and talk about things” 16 Seeking common ground 17 “I will not look you in the eye and lie to you” 17 THE LOCAL PARTY: “IT’S A KIND OF FAKE DEMOCRACY” 19 Riding associations: Patchwork quilt 20 Recruitment: “You don’t say no to Jack” 21 Nomination: “Fighting brothers and sisters, or not at all” 21 Playing the long game through the local level 22 CAUCUS: NO SORE LOSERS 24 Bonding: “Where I wanted to be” 24 Mentorship: “The general assumption is that everybody wants your job” 26 Caucus meetings: Deliberation or briefing? 27 “If you don’t want to abide by [our] values, get the hell out!” 29 “The individual loses power as the election comes closer” 30 “You cannot explain it to somebody on the outside” 31 LEADERS: “HUMANITY PERSONIFIED” 33 A remote presence 34 Courtesans 36 Staffers: “I saw them as support. They saw me as a puppet” 36 CONCLUSION: HEALTHIER POLITICAL PARTIES, STARTING IN CAUCUS 39 Creating opportunities for cross-partisanship 42 Strengthening the caucus over the leader 43 METHODOLOGY 46 ENDNOTES 47 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 48 PARTICIPATING FORMER MPs 50 3 Introducing Samara’s MP Exit Interviews: Volume II Representative democracy is in trouble. Trust in democratic institutions has been declining for decades, but recently we’ve seen how this trend can be mobilized to do lasting damage when leaders amplify that distrust in democratic institutions for their own gain. According to one former Member of Parliament (MP): “We’re not just in a sort of post-truth politics, but we’re in a post-democratic politics.” In 2018, it’s urgent that Canadians rehabilitate representative democracy, as the middle ground between daily referendums and government by unchecked elites. At the centre of representative democracy are the representatives themselves—the critical link between citizens and their democratic institutions. From 2008 to 2011, the Samara Centre for Democracy conducted the first-ever systematic series of exit interviews with former MPs. In total, 80 interviews took place in the homes and communities of former MPs who sat in the 38th, 39th and 40th Parliaments (2004- 2011). The discussions formed the basis of a series of research reports and the bestselling book Tragedy in the Commons. In those interviews, we noticed something surprising: Even after years of public service, MPs lacked a clear, shared sense of what their job as political representatives actually was—how they should spend their time and energy to represent their constituents in Par- liament and the community. So how can we expect parliamentarians to defend representa- tive democracy if they don’t agree on what core purposes they are supposed to serve? Last year, the Samara Centre, with the assistance of the Canadian Association of Former Parliamentarians, again reached out to past representatives, this time to MPs who had sat in the 41st Parliament (2011-2015) and who resigned or were defeated in the 2015 general election. We wanted to understand if the MPs’ roles were changing—for better or worse. Once again, parliamentarians opened up about their experiences as representatives in one- on-one interviews that took place in their communities. More than 100 hours of interviews with 54 MPs representing all parties, in all parts of the country, made one thing clear: the problem of a “job with no description” has not been solved. In some ways, it has wors- ened. Parliamentarians are more cut off from the essential work of scrutiny, legislation, and representation than before. If the work of an MP is hollowed out, elections themselves become hollow. Parliament is degraded, and as one former MP put it: “We don’t have a 4 democracy, outside of that institution.” An intervention is needed. This report series uses the stories and experiences of former MPs to make the case for a particular vision of political representation—one which is independent, thoughtful, engaged and empowered. Yes, this is an ambitious view. Yes, this vision requires individuals to step up and share power. But Canadian democracy requires ambition, especially in a public climate of greater polarization, partisanship, cynicism and distrust. Democracy requires Canadians to strive to make it better, and the country deserves nothing less. Each report in this series will focus on a key setting where all MPs spend significant time and energy. Each report will also share recommendations that advance the specific goals in these settings: In Parliament: MPs—whether from the backbenches of Government or from the opposition— should independently shape law and policy, and take the lead in careful scrutiny of government, rather than going through the motions of debates and scrutiny under direction from their party centres. Check out Flip the Script, released in June 2018. In the constituency: MPs should find new and innovative ways to bring citizens into political processes, rather than doing the basic customer service provision that is properly the job of the public service. Check out Beyond the Barbecue, released in July 2018. Within political parties: MPs should steward their parties, especially their caucuses, to ensure healthy deliberation in private and public, keep leadership accountable, and moderate partisanship, rather than gatekeeping and following the leaders. Please follow Samara for future report releases in this series by signing up for our newsletter and following The Samara Centre on Facebook, Twitter and Instagram. 5 Executive summary In our representative democracy, parties are essential. They bring diverse voices together to forge a cohesive vision and effect policy change. They support citizens to make sense of complicated issues during an election. The Samara Centre interviewed 54 former MPs who served in the 41st Parliament from 2011 to 2015. These MPs reported that parties had unquestionably the greatest influence on their time in office, greater than the influence of Parliament or their constituencies. They also reported that their parties were a source of community and support but also enormous frustration. KEY FINDINGS Extreme partisanship: Hollow caucus Inability to check party Former MPs expressed deliberation: Party leaders: Although MPs concern that Canadi- leaders allowed some held party leaders an politics had entered an age of discussion and debate during in awe, they generally saw their extreme partisanship. Though caucus meetings. But MPs were leaders at a distance, unless they they are quintessential party divided on its usefulness: some were part of an exclusive in-group. people, former MPs regretted the MPs accepted that caucus deliber- Members of a party caucus are extent to which they themselves ation was substantive but had meant to be a check on the power participated in partisanship, or to remain out of the public eye, of the leader. But rather than were submerged in it. while others argued that caucus encouraging meaningful dissent, meetings were used by leaders caucuses often policed and disci- for briefing members rather plined their own members to stick than real consultation. with the leader. Intense peer Diminishment of The “boys (and girls) pressure: MPs who local parties: The in short pants” were not considered ability of local party control all: absolute team players faced associations to govern them- Experienced parliamentarians incredible pressure within the par- selves, grow the grassroots, described the growing power ty, from the leader and through and choose candidates varies and influence of staffers in the ostracism from fellow caucus greatly. For many former MPs, leaders’ offices. Many MPs were members. Some MPs described the local party organization concerned about unelected members who wanted to act barely existed. More than half of staffers making many policy independently as working from a interviewed MPs ran uncontest- decisions, and some even com- point of ego and self-aggrandize- ed for the party nomination in plained that elected representa- ment, when they should be serv- their community. tives were treated as “puppets.” ing the party they had chosen. 6 2 While Parliament has always been and should remain a partisan space, there are institutional and cultural problems with party politics that have real consequences for the health of our democracy. Fixing them requires further deep examination of the party as a whole, from the grassroots to the lead- ership. In the interim, MPs should commit themselves to leaving Parliament better than they found it by: Fostering better cross-partisan relations When politicians become more polarized, the general public can respond by either turning away in disgust or mirroring that polarization—and meaningful opportunities for civil debate are destroyed. MPs can start to reduce partisan- ship to healthier levels by taking simple practical steps like: Creating informal space in Parliament to permit cross-partisan mingling.